DOCSLIB.ORG

Access the Transcript of the Podcast Here

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Access the Transcript of the Podcast Here Voiceless Animal Law Talk: Episode 2 – Animal Law and Policy Reform 2019 PODCAST TRANSCRIPT This engaging and informative educational podcast discusses animal law and policy reform in Australia, with a diverse range of animal law experts and animal protection advocates. AL LA NIM W T A A S LK S E L E C I O V the Animal Protection Education Series podcast by Voiceless Interviewees: Nichola Donovan, President of Lawyers for Animals. Daniel Cung, Chair of the NSW Young Lawyers Animal Law Committee. Ana Smietanka, Co-Founder of the Animal Law Institute. Dr Jed Goodfellow, Senior Policy Officer at RSPCA Australia. Georgie Purcell, Vice-President of Oscar’s Law. The Hon. Mark Pearson, Member of the Legislative Shatha Hamade, Legal Counsel at Animals Australia. Council of NSW (Animal Justice Party). Tara Ward, Co-Founder of the Animal Defenders Office. Laurie Levy, Founder of the Coalition Against Duck Shooting. Nicky Neville-Jones, Chair of the Law Institute of Victoria’s Animal Welfare Committee. voiceless.org.au Introduction Voiceless Animal Law Talk – a podcast by Voiceless, the animal protection institute. Dr Meg Good Welcome to the second episode of Voiceless Animal Law Talk. I’m Meg and I’m the Animal Law & Education Manager at Voiceless. In this episode, we’ll be discussing animal law and policy reform in Australia, and trying to identify why achieving law reform in this context can be so challenging. Through discussions with a diverse range of animal law experts and animal protection advocates, we’ll be exploring some of the major successes in the field, and possibilities for further reform. Whilst some advocates and lawyers campaign solely for incremental law reform developments, some argue that there is also a need to advocate for reform to the fundamental legal status of animals in Australia. We spoke to President of Lawyers for Animals, Nichola Donovan, about this idea. LFA has been operating since 2005, campaigning for various reforms, including recognising the sentience of animals under the law, and redefining their legal status. We asked Nichola for her views on the first step that could be taken towards this reform. The first is probably to change the notion of legal personhood, and to in fact codify that into a Nichola Donovan statute. We suggest perhaps even changing the language around this, because we think that it is too much of a leap, perhaps conceptual leap, to consider animals like fish, which do have sentience, and do feel pain and suffering – to consider them as legal persons. And since also corporations, and churches, and other things, are already given legal personhood, this is also a bit conceptually confusing for the average layperson. We think it might be time to change the language to something like ‘legal entity’. To grant legal entity is to give an opportunity to these, not only beings, but also bodies like corporations, to access the courts and be recognised as having some legal standing in court. We also discussed the idea of recognising animal sentience and changing the legal Dr Meg Good status of animals in Australia with Animal Law Institute Co-Founder, Ana Smietanka. The difficulty we have in Australia is that we are a legislated country. And so, if the legislation Ana Smietanka doesn’t recognise sentience for animals, we have no room under the doctrines of precedent and legislative interpretation to argue for that. We’ve come from the perspective of instead of trying to lobby for changes in laws, or make legal arguments that won’t stick, we use the current framework, which is deficient, to our advantage. So, the fact that animals are property, we’ve been using to our advantage by arguing that the consumer guarantees extend to reasonably foreseeable vet expenses. As just touched on by Ana, the Animal Law Institute has adopted a novel and creative way Dr Meg Good of approaching reform in this area, working within the confines of the current property status of animals. What we do focus on is choosing an area of the law that currently we can use that doesn’t Ana Smietanka protect animals, and that might not be designed to protect animals, and using it to achieve a positive animal welfare outcome. So, for example, when people think of animal law in Australia, traditionally they think about animal protection law - animal cruelty and the RSPCA. The legal reality in Australia is that ALI (Animal Law Institute), for example, can’t enforce that law, and I’ll call that animal welfare law. But that body of law is really the only law that’s specific to animals in Australia. That’s enforced by governments and charities, and we have no standing under the law to enforce that. Voiceless Animal Law Talk: Episode 2 – Animal Law and Policy Reform | 2 In comparison, what we do is, what we’re currently doing with puppy farms, is to use an area of the law, like the consumer law, which regulates the provision of goods and services, and apply that to dogs, cats, and any kind of domestic animal that you buy. And under our consumer law work, what we’re currently doing is using the consumer guarantees, which are statutory guarantees implied into every contract of sale, which provide that any good that you buy has to be of an acceptable quality, for example that’s one of the guarantees, and applying that to puppy farms. Under the consumer law in Australia, we’ve used the fact that animals are property to our benefit; because they are property, we can rely on the consumer law. And under the consumer law, if any consumer buys a good, and then there’s a defect in that good, and as a result of that defect, they incur consequential loss, you can claim that loss as against the person that created the good. So, the example that I would give, is if I bought an iPhone that was broken, and I had to go and return it, and it cost me a five-dollar bus ticket, I could not only ask for a new iPhone, but for that five-dollar bus ticket; because I’ve incurred that loss because of the fault. In terms of dogs and cats, what we’ve been arguing is that when an animal is sold with, for example, hip dysplasia, or parvovirus, that animal is obviously not of an acceptable quality; because when you buy a cat or dog, you don’t expect them to have such significant illnesses so early in their life. We have said that it’s reasonably foreseeable, with sentient consumer goods, which is kind of a funny phrase to use, that people will not just want a refund or an exchange, but they will want to incur vet fees, and then get those vet fees repaid. Most animal lawyers in Australia work within the current system to achieve change, whilst Dr Meg Good acknowledging the significant deficiencies inherent within that system. Sometimes this pragmatic approach is criticised on the grounds of not being reformist enough, and for being what some refer to as ‘too welfarist’. We spoke to the Vice-President of Oscar’s Law, Georgie Purcell, about this perception. Oscar’s Law was formed to campaign for the abolishment of companion animal factory farming in Australia, especially ‘puppy farms’. A word that comes up a lot in this space is that it’s a ‘welfarist’ change, and I just think that any Georgie Purcell change for animals that can happen, any law reform for animals, is something that we should absolutely celebrate. We’re not going to relieve animals from cruelty overnight, and these incremental changes create that ongoing discussion. That narrative that animals have their own experiences, and their own lives, and it really gives them that autonomy that they deserve. And it can be frustrating when people don’t understand that these changes – especially law reform, is hard. It’s complicated, and if we wrote into a bill, “puppy farming is banned”, it was going to be a lot harder to implement. It can force industries underground. It can just make things a lot harder. Whereas, we know that people with ten dogs, it’s not going to be worth it for them, they’re probably going to stop it. Most puppy farmers have had time to close down. That was another really difficult thing, is that the law passed in 2017, and then we said: “Yay, the law has passed, and come 2020 these laws will be in effect”, and people were so upset that it was going to take two and a half years. And it would have been terrible for dogs for them to have to shut down overnight. That was just something that we had to accept. That depopulating is going to mean that dogs get surrendered. It means that puppy farms aren’t going to be restocked with new breeding dogs when they retire them, and it means that there’s not going to be a whole heap of dogs out there that could have been re-homed, and had lives knocked over the head because of a sudden change in industry. Law reform, for a lot of people, it doesn’t have that immediate outcome like people want and feel that they need. But we were really, really happy with the way that this went and we think it’s the best possible way that puppy farms can be controlled in this state. But going back to what I said earlier on about it not being a federal issue, is that we were never quiet about the fact that these laws will not work until we have national consistency.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Which Political Parties Are Standing up for Animals?
    Which political parties are standing up for animals? Has a formal animal Supports Independent Supports end to welfare policy? Office of Animal Welfare? live export? Australian Labor Party (ALP) YES YES1 NO Coalition (Liberal Party & National Party) NO2 NO NO The Australian Greens YES YES YES Animal Justice Party (AJP) YES YES YES Australian Sex Party YES YES YES Pirate Party Australia YES YES NO3 Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party YES No policy YES Sustainable Australia YES No policy YES Australian Democrats YES No policy No policy 1Labor recently announced it would establish an Independent Office of Animal Welfare if elected, however its structure is still unclear. Benefits for animals would depend on how the policy was executed and whether the Office is independent of the Department of Agriculture in its operations and decision-making.. Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) NO No policy NO4 2The Coalition has no formal animal welfare policy, but since first publication of this table they have announced a plan to ban the sale of new cosmetics tested on animals. Australian Independents Party NO No policy No policy 3Pirate Party Australia policy is to “Enact a package of reforms to transform and improve the live exports industry”, including “Provid[ing] assistance for willing live animal exporters to shift to chilled/frozen meat exports.” Family First NO5 No policy No policy 4Nick Xenophon Team’s policy on live export is ‘It is important that strict controls are placed on live animal exports to ensure animals are treated in accordance with Australian animal welfare standards. However, our preference is to have Democratic Labour Party (DLP) NO No policy No policy Australian processing and the exporting of chilled meat.’ 5Family First’s Senator Bob Day’s position policy on ‘Animal Protection’ supports Senator Chris Back’s Federal ‘ag-gag’ Bill, which could result in fines or imprisonment for animal advocates who publish in-depth evidence of animal cruelty The WikiLeaks Party NO No policy No policy from factory farms.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Defenders Office the Animal Defenders Office (ADO) Is a Non-Profit, Community Law Practice That Specialises in Animal Law
    Productivity Commission GPO Box 1428 Canberra City ACT 2601 26 August 2016 Dear Sir/Madam Submission on the Regulation of Agriculture Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission in relation to the inquiry to examine the regulation of agriculture in Australia. About the Animal Defenders Office The Animal Defenders Office (ADO) is a non-profit, community law practice that specialises in animal law. The ADO offers information and representation for individuals and groups wishing to take action for animals. The ADO also produces information to raise community awareness about animal protection issues, and works to advance animal interests through law reform. The ADO is a member of Community Legal Centres NSW Inc and the National Association of Community Legal Centres. Our responses to key recommendations and previous questions on the issues of animal welfare in agriculture are set out below. Draft Recommendation 5.1 The ADO strongly supports draft recommendation 5.1, for an independent body to develop standards and guidelines for farm animal welfare. There should also be recommendations to state and territories for comparable bodies to be developed at their level. The body should take the form of an Independent Office for Animal Welfare (IOAW), similar to that previously proposed to Parliament in the Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2015. The body should be located separately from the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to avoid conflict of interest. It should be federally funded and tasked with developing a uniform set of standards for animal welfare. Further, the IOAW should be empowered to investigate and issue reports and recommendations on current key issues on animal welfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission for the Inquiry Into the Impact of Animal Rights Activism on Victorian Agriculture
    AA SUBMISSION 340 Submission for the Inquiry into the Impact of Animal Rights Activism on Victorian Agriculture 1. Term of reference a. the type and prevalence of unauthorised activity on Victorian farms and related industries, and the application of existing legislation: In Victoria, animal cruelty – including, but not limited to, legalised cruelty – neglect and violations of animal protection laws are a reality of factory farming. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Vic) affords little protection to farm animals for a number of reasons, including the operation of Codes of Practice and the Livestock Management Act 2010 (Vic). The fact that farm animals do not have the same protection as companion animals justifies applying a regime of institutionalised and systematic cruelty to them every single day of their lives: see, for example, the undercover footage contained on Aussie Farms, ‘Australian Pig Farming: The Inside Story’ (2015) < http://www.aussiepigs.com.au/ >. It is deeply concerning and disturbing that in addition to the legalised cruelty farm animals are subjected to, farm animals are also subjected to illegal/unauthorised cruelty on Victorian farms. The type of unauthorised activity on Victorian farms is extremely heinous: this is evidenced by the fact that it transcends the systematic cruelty currently condoned by law and the fact that footage of incidences of such unauthorised activity is always horrific and condemned by the public at large. Indeed, speaking about footage of chickens being abused at Bridgewater Poultry earlier this year, even the Victorian Farmers Federation egg group president, Tony Nesci, told the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age that he was horrified by the footage and livid at what had happened.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 31 Animals Australia
    Submission No 31 INQUIRY INTO PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT (RESTRICTIONS ON STOCK ANIMAL PROCEDURES) BILL 2019 Organisation: Animals Australia Date Received: 6 August 2020 6 August 2020 The Hon. Mark Banasiak MLC Chair, Portfolio Committee No. 4 - Industry New South Wales Legislative Council By Email: [email protected] Dear Mr Banasiak, Animals Australia’s Submission to the New South Wales Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Restrictions on Stock Animal Procedures) Bill 2019 Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on this important Bill to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTA), and to provide evidence at the Inquiry on 11 August 2020. If the Committee requires any further information or clarification prior to my appearance, we are able to provide these on request. Animals Australia is a leading animal protection organisation that regularly contributes advice and expertise to government and other bodies in Australia, and though our international arm (Animals International) works on global animal welfare issues. On behalf of our individual members and supporters, we are pleased to be able to provide this submission. A. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT Schedule 1 Amendment of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 No 200 [1] Section 23B Insert after section 23A— 23B Mules operation prohibited (1) A person who performs the Mules operation on a sheep is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty—50 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both. (2) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) until on or after 1 January 2022. [2] Section 24 Certain defences Insert “or” at the end of section 24(1)(a)(iii).
    [Show full text]
  • Right to Farm Bill 2019
    LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Portfolio Committee No. 4 - Industry Right to Farm Bill 2019 Ordered to be printed 21 October 2019 according to Standing Order 231 Report 41 - October 2019 i LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Right to Farm Bill 2019 New South Wales Parliamentary Library cataloguing-in-publication data: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Portfolio Committee No. 4 – Industry Right to Farm Bill 2019 / Portfolio Committee No. 4 – Industry [Sydney, N.S.W.] : the Committee, 2019. [68] pages ; 30 cm. (Report no. 41 / Portfolio Committee No. 4 – Industry) “October 2019” Chair: Hon. Mark Banasiak, MLC. ISBN 9781922258984 1. New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Assembly—Right to Farm Bill 2019. 2. Trespass—Law and legislation—New South Wales. 3. Demonstrations—Law and legislation—New South Wales. I. Land use, Rural—Law and legislation—New South Wales. II. Agricultural resources—New South Wales III. Banasiak, Mark. IV. Title. V. Series: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Portfolio Committee No. 4 – Industry. Report ; no. 41 346.944036 (DDC22) ii Report 41 - October 2019 PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 4 - INDUSTRY Table of contents Terms of reference iv Committee details v Chair’s foreword vi Finding vii Recommendation viii Conduct of inquiry ix Chapter 1 Overview 1 Reference 1 Background and purpose of the bill 1 Overview of the bill's provisions 2 Chapter 2 Key issues 5 Nuisance claims 5 Balancing the rights of farmers and neighbours 5 Deterring nuisance claims 8 The nuisance shield: a defence or bar to a claim? 9 Remedies for nuisance
    [Show full text]
  • (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019 Submission
    SENATE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019 Submission My farming background The community is increasingly aware of farming practices – but wants to know more Key reasons why I oppose the bill Why is farm trespass happening? Productivity Commission – Regulation of Agriculture final report 2016 Erosion of community trust Biosecurity First World countries’ view of our farming practices Futureye Report – Australia’s Shifting Mind Set on Farm Animal Welfare The major new trend – plant-based food and lab meat Ag-gag laws Who are these animal activists? Conclusion Attachment – additional references regarding Ag-gag laws 1 Thank you for the opportunity of making a submission. My farming backgrond Until the age of 35, I experienced life on a dairy and beef farm in northern Victoria. In the 1960s I used to accompany our local vet on his farm rounds, because I wanted to study veterinary science. I saw all sorts of farming practices first-hand. I saw the distress of calves having their horn buds destroyed with hot iron cautery. I saw the de-horning of older cattle. I saw the castration of young animals by burdizzo. All these procedures took place without pain relief. I saw five-day old bobby calves put on trucks destined for the abattoir. I heard cows bellowing for days after their calves were taken. One Saturday I saw sheep in an abattoir holding pen in 40- degree heat without shade as they awaited their slaughter the following Monday. These images have remained with me. The community is increasingly aware of farming practices – but wants to know more Nowadays pain relief is readily available for castration, mulesing etc, but it is often not used because of its cost to farmers.
    [Show full text]
  • Advocating for Animals in Australia
    THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE : ADVOCATING FOR ANIMALS IN AUSTRALIA * DAVID GLASGOW A movement of activist ‘animal lawyers’ has recently arrived in Australia. This article contends that Australian lawyers have a significant role to play in advancing the animal protection cause. Part I discusses the philosophical foundation of the modern animal protection movement and describes the important theoretical divide that splits it into animal ‘welfare’ and animal ‘rights’. Part II explains the Australian legal regime governing animal protection to show how the law acts as a site of exploitation. Part III explores the role of lawyers within the movement. It does this by appraising the obstacles in the way of animal protectionism and exploring what makes an effective lawyer advocate. It then uses a case study of battery hens to demonstrate the valuable role lawyers can play to support the animal cause. We are now at a new and strange juncture in human experience. Never has there been such massive exploitation of animals… At the same time, never have there been so many people determined to stop this exploitation. 1 Laws relating to animals have existed for centuries. However, a movement of activist ‘animal lawyers’ has only recently arrived in Australia. This movement seeks to advocate for animals and challenge deficiencies in laws that adversely impact upon them. There has been a surge of animal law activity in recent years, signalling the birth of the movement in Australia. A few examples include the rise of law schools teaching Animal Law; 2 the advent of organisations such as Voiceless, 3 the Barristers Animal Welfare * BA/LLB (First Class Honours), Melbourne (2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Experimentation Fact Sheet
    Animal Experimentation Fact Sheet In this factsheet... 1. Introduction 2. Types of Research 3. Alternatives 4. Animals in Education 5. Animal protection laws? 6. Reform is needed 7. Further information Introduction The use of living animals in research and teaching became significant in the second half of the nineteenth century as part of the development of the emerging sciences of physiology and anatomy. The post-war expansion of the pharmaceutical and chemical industries saw an enormous increase in the use of animals in research. Today it is a multi-billion dollar industry, encompassing the pharmaceutical and chemical industries and university and government bodies. There is also a significant industry providing support services in relation to animal research, including animal breeding, food supply, cage manufacture, etc. The vast majority of animals used in research are subjected to some degree of pain or stress during experimental Rabbits are commonly used overseas in painful eye irritancy tests for products procedures to which they may be subjected, or as a result available in Australia. of the environment in which they are kept prior to or after those procedures. Many people think that all animal research is part of medical research - this is not true. Types of Research The following are the most common (but not only) categories of animal-based research: Basic 'Biomedical Research' The majority of animals used in research and teaching in universities and research establishments are used in experiments or procedures which are aimed at finding out more about the processes governing the function of living organisms. Some of this work may be relevant to the understanding of human disease, but most of it will not be.
    [Show full text]
  • Which Political Parties Are Standing up for Animals?
    Which political parties are standing up for animals? Has a formal animal Supports Independent Supports end to welfare policy? Office of Animal Welfare? live export? Australian Labor Party (ALP) YES YES1 NO Coalition (Liberal Party & National Party) NO2 NO NO The Australian Greens YES YES YES Animal Justice Party (AJP) YES YES YES Australian Sex Party YES YES YES Health Australia Party YES YES YES Science Party YES YES YES3 Pirate Party Australia YES YES NO4 Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party YES No policy YES Sustainable Australia YES No policy YES 1Labor recently announced it would establish an Independent Office of Animal Welfare if elected, however its struc- ture is still unclear. Benefits for animals would depend on how the policy was executed and whether the Office is independent of the Department of Agriculture in its operations and decision-making. Australian Democrats YES No policy No policy 2The Coalition has no formal animal welfare policy, but since first publication of this table they have announced a plan to ban the sale of new cosmetics tested on animals. Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) NO No policy NO5 3The Science Party's policy states "We believe the heavily documented accounts of animal suffering justify an end to the current system of live export, and necessitate substantive changes if it is to continue." Australian Independents Party NO No policy No policy 4Pirate Party Australia policy is to “Enact a package of reforms to transform and improve the live exports industry”, including “Provid[ing] assistance for willing live animal exporters to shift to chilled/frozen meat exports.” 6 Family First NO No policy No policy 5Nick Xenophon Team’s policy on live export is ‘It is important that strict controls are placed on live animal exports to ensure animals are treated in accordance with Australian animal welfare standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee Secretary State Development, Natural Resources and Agricultural Industry Development Committee Parliament House George Street Brisbane QLD 4000
    Agriculture and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 Submission No. 006 Committee Secretary State Development, Natural Resources and Agricultural Industry Development Committee Parliament House George Street Brisbane QLD 4000 By email: [email protected] Dear Sir/Madam Submission on the Agriculture and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Agriculture and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 (Qld) (“the Bill”). About the Animal Defenders Office The Animal Defenders Office (“ADO”) is a nationally accredited community legal centre that specialises in animal law. The ADO is run by volunteer lawyers and law students. The ADO offers information and representation for individuals and groups wishing to protect animals. The ADO also produces information to raise community awareness about animal protection issues, and works to advance animal interests through law reform. The ADO is based in the Australian Capital Territory (“ACT”) and is a member of Community Legal Centres Australia. Background The Bill is an ‘omnibus’ bill which, according to the Explanatory Memorandum (“EM”), purportedly addresses issues regarding the regulation of matters including agriculture and animal management and welfare (EM1). The main focus of the Bill is ‘[u]nauthorised entry by animal activist protestors to places where animals are kept in Queensland’ (EM1). While the ADO does not in principle support the use of animals for agricultural or other commercial purposes, we acknowledge that such use is currently lawful. We have therefore considered the measures proposed in the Bill and our comments are set out in detail below. General comments The treatment of animals by industries that profit from their use has come under increased scrutiny in Australia in recent times.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Animal Protection Law Journal Issn 1835-7008
    AUSTRALIAN ANIMAL PROTECTION LAW JOURNAL ISSN 1835-7008 Australia’s first peer-reviewed Animal Law journal (2011) 5 AAPLJ EDITOR John Mancy ASSISTANT EDITOR Jacquie Mancy-Stuhl Published by John Mancy t/as LEGAL BULLETIN SERVICE 18 Wavell St., Carlingford, N.S.W. 2118 Australia E-mail: [email protected] © 2008 John Mancy t/as Legal Bulletin Service (2011) 5 AAPLJ ! 1! CONTENTS DEFINING THE PUPPY FARM PROBLEM: An Examination of the Regulation of Dog Breeding, Rearing and Sale in Australia Katherine Cooke …… 3 THE RIGHTS OF ANIMALS AND THE WELFARIST APPROACH TO PROTECTION: May the Twain Meet? Stephen Keim SC & Tracy-Lynne Geysen … 26 SHOOTING OUR WILDLIFE: An Analysis of The Law and its Animal Welfare Outcomes for Kangaroos & Wallabies Keely Boom and Dror Ben-Ami … 44 TOWARDS THE LEGAL PROTECTION OF ANIMALS IN CHINA Deborah Cao … 76 NOTES Whaling Update (Celeste Black) … 82 Bobby Calves: an example of the Standards Development Process (Elizabeth Ellis) ... 89 CASE NOTES Australian Consumer and Competition Commission v CI & Co Pty Ltd & Ors 1 (Ian Weldon ) … 96 BOOK REVIEWS 102 • Animal Rights What Everyone Needs To Know • Kitty McSporran Saves the Animals ANIMAL LAW COURSES 2011-12 104 1 [2011]FCA 1511. (2011) 5 AAPLJ ! 2! Defining the Puppy Farm Problem: An Examination of the Regulation of Dog Breeding, Rearing and Sale in Australia By Katherine Cooke ! ‘Human beings do not treat animals harshly because they are classified as property; animals are classified as property so that human beings can legally treat them harshly.’2 This article examines the regulation of dog breeding, rearing and sale in Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill 2015
    The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill 2015 June 2015 © Commonwealth of Australia 2015 ISBN 978-1-76010-195-4 This document was prepared by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport and printed by the Senate Printing Unit, Department of the Senate, Parliament House, Canberra. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License. The details of this licence are available on the Creative Commons website: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/. Membership of the committee Members Senator the Hon Bill Heffernan, Chair New South Wales, LP Senator Glenn Sterle, Deputy Chair Western Australia, ALP Senator Joe Bullock Western Australia, ALP Senator Sean Edwards South Australia, LP Senator Rachel Siewert Western Australia, AG Senator John Williams New South Wales, NATS Substitute members for this inquiry Senator Lee Rhiannon New South Wales, AG to replace Senator Rachel Siewert Other Senators participating in this inquiry Senator Chris Back Western Australia, LP Senator David Leyonhjelm New South Wales, LDP Senator Nick Xenophon South Australia, IND iii Secretariat Mr Tim Watling, Secretary Dr Jane Thomson, Principal Research Officer Ms Erin East, Principal Research Officer Ms Bonnie Allan, Principal Research Officer Ms Trish Carling, Senior Research Officer Ms Kate Campbell, Research Officer Ms Lauren Carnevale, Administrative Officer PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Ph: 02 6277 3511 Fax: 02 6277 5811 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.aph.gov.au/senate_rrat iv Table of contents Membership of the committee ........................................................................
    [Show full text]